Casstevens, serving as president ime, and then you start to come down. Washington journal continues. Host scott burris joins us from philadelphia, serving at temple universitys research. Some 300 andris, 11 million some 311 Million People living under stayathome orders in their states. Do these are the stayathome orders created equal, or are more restrictive than others . Guest while, they are getting to look a lot like each other well, they are getting to look a lot like each other. I think the trend is basically, you stay at home, your kids dont go to school, your universities are closed, you can go out for exercise, but you so have to socialdistance during that time. Playgrounds are closed, team sports armband. You can go to the team sports are banned. You can go to the Grocery Store. You can go to the gun shop. Gas stations are open, pharmacies are dont try to get your hair done. As they say, gray is the new blonde. Host what would be the difference between a national stayathome order versus all of order,tes stayathome obviously filling in the gaps on this map from the new york times, would shows the state and white they do not which the states in white they do not have stayathome orders. Guest of course, we would be uniform. We as extent, policymakers, planners, and citizens think, we should all just shut down for a month and get it over with. To the extent you can get it over with, you know, you can say we are all doing it. On the other hand, it could potentially raise legal issues because it is not clear as a legal matter that the federal government can order everybody to stayathome. That kind of control of movement , that quarantine within states has traditionally been a state matter. In some states, it is also delegated locally. And you know, for every argument about uniformity, there is an differ, andt places it makes sense to adjust conditions as necessary and appropriate. I think the problem that your question begs is do we have a National Plan . Fundamentally, nobody gets coronavirus in the United States. Iowaget it in chicago or or in a place. Right . The role of the federal government is to make a plan that all those places can follow. And that is where i think we feel the pain right now. We just dont necessarily have a real clear plan coming out of the federal government. Host when it comes to the stayathome orders in those owners are there store and groups challenging these orders in states, and how has those challenges been dealt with with the judicial systems in the states . Guest the one thing you can say about this epidemic in these ds of measures, they are measures, we have never seen anything like this. Even today, it is not clear what we are seeing because a lot of courts are closed. So far, none of those orders, none of those challenges have resulted in any kind of Court Judgment that illuminates this issue, and my guess would be that courts are going to delay deciding, or simply uphold state authority to force these measures. Courts are not generally in the business sticking their nose into an emergency response, unless there is clear evidence of the government is acting in an irrational way. Host if you want to join the conversation, talking about state and federal powers to restrict movement during health emergency, scott burris of temple university, it is 2027488000 in the central and eastern United States. 2027488001 if youre in the mountain or specific regions. Professor burris, as folks are calling in, some callers in the past couple of days have called for more restrictive moment between states, calling on their own states to stop travelers coming in from new york city or other hotspots right now within the United States. Is that possible within states . Guest well, this again is another one of these unchartered areas of law. I think my judgment would be at the moment that, states a wallves cannot create at their borders. They cannot ban people from coming in, and they cannot prevent people from going out. And that is especially true if it is done in a discriminatory way. If the state says no people from new york can come here as opposed to saying people who have recently traveled to new york. State pick up people by citizenship, that would be a problem, but there is a little wiggle room here and that states do have their wellestablished quarantine power. So it states have a solid basis to say people coming from a hotspot are at heightened risk of having been exposed, and a heightened risk of spreading the disease, imposing that common 14 day quarantine probably be of help. It is a distinction. You cannot say no new yorkers can come to florida, but but say they can come to new york. You will have to selfisolate for 14 days. The bigger question is really of closing theea borders because people are coming from somewhere else that is been more strongly effective is really valid. At this point, and most of the places talking about having these kinds of limitations, we are already have uncontrolled Community Spread anyway, so you know, that may be closing the barn door after the horses have fled. Host if states cannot close borders, can they require medical examinations, whether it is taking somebodys temperature at a stop along the highway, or if he gets to the point were testing speeds up enough that you can get near instant results . Can they force people to take medical examinations before coming into their state . Guest i think that would fall into the illegal category because that looks like Border Control at the state level. We have a very strong constitution a Free Movement of all americans from state to state. Now, the feds feds have thethe authority to take diseasecontrol measures that are medically necessary and reasonable in relation to interstate travel. In that sense, it would be kind of like having those thermometers and tests at the national border. And we have experience, not within the last 100 years, but we have experience of the feds closing borders of states, and requiring Health Checks in a way that was upheld by courts. Host we did specifically . With theis is the same San Francisco black plague outbreak at the turn in the last century. So in that case, it is very famous because the San Francisco 30s attempted to put a sanitary around chinatown that applied only to Chinese People. To requireso tried Chinese People to get a Health Certificate before leaving the city. And both of those were overturned as medically unjustified and discriminatory, but what is less wellknown is there was an order issued after the first order was overturned by the federal court officer, that required people who were going to leave the state on any vessel, to get a Health Certificate, and that was not invalidated. And in fact, all around california, the neighboring states had set up Border Controls under federal authority to make sure that people coming out of San Francisco when unaffected with the plague. Host lets chat with a few callers. Steve out of charleston, south carolina. Good morning. You are with professor burris. Caller good morning, john and professor burris. I am not sure if youre from a with the charlson area. We have three local beaches. Ago, the townks officials took action to close access to the beaches, obviously for crowd control. And you know, i am on board with that, and my wife and i are in selfquarantine, and my wife has not left the house in weeks. I go to the Grocery Store as needed, which has been once a week in the pharmacy as needed. We are trying to do our part, but when these town officials closed the beaches, they set up checkpoints, and if you had a reason to be beaches. I dont understand that. May be technically, from a legal standpoint, that is correct, but you know, i just think the fortunately, some selfish group decided that only the governor could close the beaches, so they threatened a lawsuit at one of the beaches. I dont understand that. May be technically, from a legal standpoint, that is correct, but you know, i just think the beaches should be closed, and it is way much policy. It puts an undue burden on police to disperse crowds. By the way, the folks at myrtle beach experienced a large influence of people from new york and new jersey trying to escape. Theres always a possibility of bringing that virus to that part of our state, which is 100 20 miles from my town, but this legal technicality upon closing stuff is really something that needs to be looked at. Host thank you for bringing it upright professor burris . Caller that is right. We want a good response and we dont want legal technicalities to get in the way of that. This story seems to me is a story of the failures of some of our leaders to understand what is necessary and the time lag. And that has really been disastrous for us. I mean, we have been behind as a nation, behind this from the start. We are behind this because we have a lot of leaders who failed to grasp the significance of what was going to happen. Failed to understand the science that was emerging about how it was transmitted, and failed to grasp what they had to do. We have been highness unfortunately because we have allowed our Public Health infrastructure, our state and local health departments, and our National Health resources to dwindle. Be 130 probably billion short of spending in those institutions in the last 10 to 15 years. We are that far below where we were in 2008, and that means you dont have people who are following as closely as they should. You dont have strong employees with enough experience encouraged to push back against the leadership are you dont have the capacity to build a proper task. The problem here is not the law. The law allows states, localities, and the federal government together with a plan to do everything they need to stop this virus. The problem is the people who are wilting the law. Host when we get a vaccine for this, and hopefully it is sooner than later, can states or the federal government mandate people get a Coronavirus Vaccine . Guest well, in there i have to say, the day they have a vaccine, they will have to have crowd control mandate people to wait in line. Vaccine, theth any primary mechanism for developing national and individual heard in unity is making sure we have enough of the vaccine fast enough. See, withlways measles, have isolated pockets of people dont trust the vaccine, and for them, some kind of mandate may be necessary. And probably is legal. Certainly is legal. Depending on how the mandate is done. We know that from, you know, 100 years of law, but the main thing is, can we get the vaccine out, and can we handle the demand, which is going to be here . Has a vaccine case ever reached the Supreme Court . Guest are most famous case about government Public Health authority our most famous case about government Public Health authority came out about a pox epidemic in the determination of one man, named jacobson, to refuse vaccination. And the court ruled the Supreme Court ruled in 1904 1905, the government certainly had the power to compel vaccination when it was necessary to prevent the spread of a disease in the community. And the reasoning is timeless. They said, look, we all live together in a great, social contract, and that social contract includes our fundamental civil rights, but it also includes the right of the collective to defend itself, and it also includes an obligation on individuals to submit to reasonable and safe measures to prevent the spread of the disease. This ontario, california, is susanna. Good morning. Caller good morning, everybody. It is early in the morning in california, but im following very diligently on what is happening around the world. I want to bring two issues. Key toion is really the stopping the spread of the virus, but nobody is talking to scientists who have a vast experience with coronavirus. Withe are also dealing overcrowding and overpopulated environments. And we know coronavirus. And we know how to deal with prevention. So, one of the important aspects is one Health Initiative is in place. Veterinarians are warning people to watch for the animals. Wildlife especially is going to spill over at one point intentionally or not intentionally. Wee bios terrorism have bioterrorism we are teaching students. Nobody is talking to veterinarians. Put all the to sciences together, especially those working with animals. Neff of the protection of animals, but not for the protection of animals, but the protection of people. Number two, introducing barriers. Nobody is telling the public to terminally inactivate the virus that is potentially there. Every day after you come back from the public exposure, go masks,d wash, boil your or just put in the microwave for five minutes. Unless it is metal parts in them. Host thank you for the call. Scott burris brings up the issue of what you can wear when you are out, whether you should wear a mask, whether you should be forced to wear a mask, and how you should clean that mask. Is there anything in history that tells us what states in the federal government can do when it comes to that issue . Guest well, not specifically, but again, the way the epidemic law develops over the years in the United States was, as people realized, we are not going to know what to do. We will be adapting and evolving response when something new like this comes along. So, we will write the law in a way that says basically you Health Authorities can do whatever you think is the right gotg to do, as long as you some plausible, Scientific Evidence or reasoning to support it. So, we dont need a mask on. The federal and the state governments can do what they want. The question is, is there plausible basis . There have been questions about masks. There has been back communication. It is strange to tell people, well, masks wont help you, but by the way, we need all the masks we can get for Health Care Providers. So we have not explained what is going on, and make clear the very different risk profile that Health Care Providers are facing versus citizens. That it is pretty clear all things being equal, masks can prevent certain types certain types of masks can prevent certain types of drop us from getting into your nose, mouth, or eyes. And we know now, pretty clearly, that our that there are people who will be Walking Around a coronavirus that dont know they have it. Announcer we are going to leave this discussion, but you can watch this and any cspan Program Online i cspan. Org. We take you to new york
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.